interview

The Approaching Human Disaster

During the last month the Kurdish border regions of Iran and Iraq have been witness to artillery shelling from Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) and Turkey’s warplanes. In addition to inflicting tragic civilian casualties, these attacks have also raised the concerns of analysts from a political perspective.

In late July human rights organizations including the Red Cross announced that more than 200 Kurdish families had been displaced because of the shelling of Iraqi Kurdish areas. Iraqi Kurdish authorities and media however state that as a result of these attacks, the inhabitants of 35 villages which includes 400 families have been forced to their homes. After the events of August 21st which resulted in the death of seven non-military civilians form a family it was reported that 3 civilians were killed and another 11 wounded.

Haman Seidi, a political Kurdish commentator and specialist on Kurdish affairs spoke with Rooz and warned about the human catastrophe in the border regions, also commenting on the various political events of the last month.

Read on for the details.

Rooz: After a few-day lull in the shelling of the border areas with Iraq by the Iranian forces, the bombardment resumed along with Turkish aerial bombardment. What in your opinion is the reason for this coordinated attack?

Haman Seidi: Turkey’s joining-in strengthens this suspicion that this round of attacks is fully coordinated. I would like to point out that even the attack by the IRGC was almost completely without any warning or excuses. An un-named person who government media claim is a senior official appears in the media out of nowhere and proclaims that the Kurdistan Provincial Government in Iraq has handed over 300 hectares of land to PJAK, an armed Kurdish group. And even though this claim was rejected by Iraqi Kurdish authorities and was never substantiated it was an easy excuse for a new round of attacks on the joint border areas by the Islamic republic. Turkey, on the other which just emerged from its elections crises and was no longer concerned about the votes in the region, also looked for an excuse to join the Islamic republic. Another point to note is that there was nothing new in the recent PKK attack that left 9 Turkish soldiers dead. This was a fight between two armed groups. It was not a terrorist act in the middle of Ankara or Istanbul. But the response as we see is a Turkish reprisal on civilians. So these actions were not accidental but took place through systematic coordination. Iran and Turkey have been at loggerheads on some issues, particularly over issues related to Egypt, Gaza and Syria, but the only issue that could keep the two countries on the same strategy and cooperation in the region is this suppression of Kurdish fighters.

Rooz: But this is not the first time that Turkey and Iran join hands against their common enemies. It is even said that the countries have a strategic alliance on this. What is the difference between this latest round of assaults and the previous ones?

Haman Seidi: The differences stem from the fluctuating relations between Turkey and Iran. When relations between the two countries are bad, the issue that is used by one against the other is this Kurdish issue. Note that the two countries have a differing view of Syria. So this is like a glue issue where it can bind the two sides together. More importantly, both are concerned that Syrian Kurds may push to have the same status that Iraqi Kurds have. Turkey has taken a more pragmatic attitude towards Syria. Erdogan’s administration wants to unite Syrian opposition without a strong Kurdish presence.

Rooz: Regarding Iran, do these actions have any relations with the country’s domestic issues?

Haman Seidi: Definitely. IRGC’s unilateralism and aggressiveness is a key issue. This military-political organization wants to show to all sides that are battling the regime that it is present in all events and actions, and that it is the first to get engaged in everything. In other words, if in the past it was the decisive force on economic and domestic policy issues, this event demonstrates that it desires to take control of the foreign policy, protect the territorial integrity of the country and confront the opposition as well. Note that the armed forces have not played any role in these attacks, even though these operations were conducted outside the borders, which according to the laws of the country are the prerogative of the armed forces. This of course can also indicate the differences that exist inside the regime. But just like in Turkey, these policies cannot last for a long time and they would in the future confound the actors and create more problems.

Rooz: It does not appear that the central governments in the region, the Kurdistan Provincial Government and even American forces in Iraq are not taking this very seriously, even though Iraqi politicians and representatives regularly talk of violations of the Iraqi air space by Iran and Turkey.

Haman Seidi: Yes, it appears that not only the US but also the Iraqi central government and even the Kurdistan Provincial Government are all tolerating these attacks. I would like to say that if the same events had taken place in Turkey, then there would have been a huge outcry and a rapid American reaction. Just a few days ago, the Iranian consul in Iraq had said that the Iraqi government was cooperating with Iran in cracking down on the terrorist groups. Or look at Mr. Barzani’s latest statement on this, which at the end takes a pleading attitude. The head of the Kurdistan Provincial Government requests from the Turkish government not to repeat such actions.

Rooz: But why?

Haman Seidi: There are different reasons. Having an ally in Turkey which is also a NATO member is far more important to the US, particularly as this country is playing a more decisive role in the events of the region. At the same time, the US has been worried for a few years now about Turkey moving towards Islamicism. The government in Baghdad too has been more interested in political machinations and deals with Ankara, Baghdad and Tehran rather than cooperate with the Kurds.

Rooz: So where is all this going?

Haman Seidi: Turkey has been doing this for the past 20 years. The result has been the death of some 40,000 people on both sides. Perhaps because of these actions, the Kurds are perhaps more united today. I think Turkey is on the wrong path. Iraqi Kurdistan too must feel responsible for every inch of its land, whether it is over the presence of PJAK or PKK or in its relations with Turkey. The Iraqi regime must realize that it cannot go on the same path that Saddam Hussein did. This would increase its rift with the Kurdish government and eventually turn to separation. If the central government wants Iraq to remain united and have territorial integrity, then it must realize that its relations with Arbil (the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan) are more important than those with Tehran or Ankara.